Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Iraq War to the Algerian War


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Delete !votes have the strongest arguments. It looks full of OR and, unless multiple works have been published doing an in-depth histiography of the subject, is not a viable encyclopedic article — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of Iraq War to the Algerian War

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I've just remembered this article, which I came across a couple of years ago; it still suffers from the same problems, so I've taken it to AFD. While interesting, I think this article is largely a piece of original research. Certainly, the Iraq and Algerian wars have been compared; the sources show that, and links were drawn even by the Pentagon itself. But the actual content of this article is mostly unreferenced and based on the views of the author. Note that a similar article, Articles for deletion/Comparison of Iraq and Vietnam wars, was deleted in 2008; again, such comparisons have been made, but there's probably not enough material to base an article on the subject. This kind of compare-and-contrast exercise is best left to the reader. Robofish (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as an original essay. Carrite (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't delete unless a better place for the cited content is proposed. There is clearly considerable content that's not attracted any post facto citations though the fact that the core argument did attract such citations is worth noting positively.


 * I see here that no deletion would normally happen until at least Aug. 1. I'd hope that would be the case.


 * How about cutting off the 2/3rds+- of the entry that's not been backed by citations and leaving the part that has, most or all at the beginning? That would also leave the deleted blocks in revision history for further research/citework/revival if/when doable. I'd help on it in a reasonable time period, say a couple of weeks. This article could I assume be better linked in to the other Iraq War articles and I'd work on that, too.


 * Is there a reason the deletion-proposal template on the article doesn't link to this page (it's a red link)? I am asked, there, not to tamper with it. Separately, I'm assuming updates to this page also appear on the July 25 deletion-proposals page. I'll see.


 * Thanks for the notification. I'll check back. Swliv (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the link to the deletion page from the article's template will appear as a redlink until the cache is purged. I've no idea why. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You can purge the page by adding "?action=purge" after the URL in your browser's address bar and then pressing ENTER. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This appears to be an essay, and fails WP:OR. It's also hopelessly outdated; the 'Iraq is like Algeria' argument was going around in about 2004, and the comparison doesn't hold much water these days for fairly obvious reasons. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope it's OK to respond to a vote like this: I think you're misstating what the article is. It's history, now that the war is largely history. So it's not saying Iraq is Algeria. It's saying that during the war, the war was looked at by principals to some degree as analogous to the Algerian War. Do you really want to blot out that part of the history? Isn't history part of the encyclopedic mission too? The essay part I've made a counter-proposal on -- i.e. delete that part. Doesn't that make sense? Swliv (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That article doesn't say that at all - it's an OR essay arguing that there are direct comparisons. Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to ask again: Are you distinguishing between the citation-backed (i.e. non-original-research) beginning of the current article on the one hand and the extensive (2/3rds I've estimated above) unfootnoted text that started (chronologically), and now finishes, the article? I know my contribution to the article was not original research and I see other parts which seem not to be, either.


 * Taking in Buckshot06's concurrence just below, I will refine my proposal to include, if it's preferred, an "explore merger" kind of template on the proposed, cut-back article. (Guidance on exact template appreciated.) I accept this article may not have a big free-standing future -- it's sort of a "footnote to history", in my view, though not one to be thrown out with the bathwater. I feel it has at least a mid-term free-standing future if and until the citation-backed portion finds a good home.


 * I am prepared, based on this discussion in total to date, to undertake the drastic edit that I propose. I'm not ready to do it conditionally, in other words, to let you all then "decide if we like it". But, if there's agreement on the "mid-term" future of the article (one year?), I'd do the work. Thanks all. Swliv (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The cited material is certainly a lot better than the rest, but I think that this is a case where the article needs to be started more or less from scratch. I'd be happy to recover the article if it's deleted and post it in your user space. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the offer. Would your recovery bring back the revision history, may I ask? I copied the article copy out for myself a few days ago against the possible deletion. The history, though, of course I couldn't reasonably copy out and is part of what I'd hate to see lost in this deletion process.


 * Another question I have: Do you agree with the proposing editor's comment that "[t]his kind of compare-and-contrast exercise is best left to the reader"? That seems to be a tighter standard even than you are proposing and really a rather astonishing statement given the scope and depth of the dialogue and history covered (in albeit a flawed fashion).


 * Finally, in case you're not counting, if you change your vote to "Prune Severely" and noone else joins in, this deletion needn't happen (assuming majority rules in the process). With that in mind, may I finally ask whether there is anything I'm doing wrong, here, in pursuit of my goal, from your perspective? Is my "one year" unreasonable? for example.


 * Thanks for your attentions, and cheers. Swliv (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Prune Severely per Swliv. Wikipedia *cannot* do historiography, which is effectively what this article seeks to do. That's WP:SYNTH. What we can and should do is report the historiography that others (commentators, academics etc, RSs) have done. Thus all the unreferenced material should be removed, and as much stubifying as this article needs should be carried out. If this articles does not quickly turn into a reporting of cited comparisons only, then I will personally nominate it for deletion again. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in. "[H]istoriography" scares me a bit as a word but I think I get your meaning. One fine point: You say it "seeks" to "do hist.". I would say the article sought to do so, originally. Others came upon it and, first, put the challenges to the OR in as a template, seeking citations; and, second, some like me came upon the article with citeable additions to make, and made them. Yes, we later ones could have taken up the shears and cut the original work but we didn't. Now I'm hoping it's not all to be lost and I appreciate your support for my proposal (see more above). Cheers. Swliv (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.